The biggest problem we face in the nuclear disarmament movement is getting people to pay attention to the nuclear threat. Well . . . people are paying attention now!

And they'll keep paying attention, day after day, for the next month, as the Bibi Brouhaha plays out.

We often complain about how the mainstream media doesn't give attention to the issues that really matter. (Underinflated footballs, anyone?) Well, for better or worse, this Netanyahu story is guaranteed to be in everyone's face for weeks. (Hey, John Boehner is not one to cut his losses when he finds himself in the midst of a fiasco. Expect escalation.)

Netanyhu is coming to talk about nuclear weapons. Iran and nuclear weapons.

Our job? Take advantage of every development in the story to shine the light of day on the real nuclear weapons story. We need to stress that Iran + nukes is just a sideshow . . . hell, Israel + nukes is just a sideshow! . . . the main event is the U.S. and its nukes -- and its failure (together with the other nuclear "haves") to disarm.

The press and a large percentage of the public has already picked up on the fact that the ostensible story -- "Iran bad, Israel here to save US from disaster -- with help of Republicans" -- is a joke. The press and the public are already talking about the story behind the story . . . and the story behind that. So . . . it's time for us to sweep in with the real story (and it's a heavy one)!

Far too many people think that the NPT is about freezing the status quo,
and preventing additional states from obtaining nuclear weapons. This
is a fundamental misunderstanding. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo:
nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear
"haves" agree to disarm.

In session after session of Congress, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
introduces a bill calling for nuclear disarmament. Here's the summary of
the version from the 2013-14 Congress (the 113th), known as "H.R.1650 - Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013". What I'm wondering is: will Rep. Norton have the support of her colleagues in the Progressive Caucus?

The choices are: (a) take back the power currently held by our
thermonuclear monarch; or (b) shut up and pray. Those are the only two
choices, and everybody gets to choose where they stand. The people in
Congress who won't step up to either of them are a nothing but a bunch
of putzes.

As the Obama administration prepares in the days ahead to pivot from its focus on Syria to something truly startling -- talking to Iran!
-- it is important that the American public devotes some time and
energy to learning and thinking about Iran, the history of the U.S.-Iran
relationship, and what the U.S.-Iran relationship means in the larger
context of the effort to reduce the risk of war and violence in the
world.

Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013 - Requires the government: (1) to provide leadership to negotiate and enter into a multilateral treaty or other international agreement that provides for the dismantlement and elimination, under strict international control, of all nuclear weapons in every country by 2020; (2) once the President certifies that all countries have eliminated such weapons or begun such elimination under established legal requirements, to redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to addressing human and infrastructure needs and to converting nuclear weapons industry employees, processes, plants, and programs to constructive, ecologically beneficial peacetime activities; (3) to undertake efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military operations; and (4) to promote policies to induce all other countries to join in such commitments.

Rep. Norton can be expected to reintroduce the bill in the new Congress this spring. Will the 114th be the charm?

Considering that the eyes of the world will be on the U.S. this spring as nations meet at the UN in New York to consider the fate of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the face of continued refusal of the U.S. to honor its treaty obligations to disarm, it certainly seems that this is the year for this bill to get passed and acted upon.

What I'm wondering is: will Rep. Norton have the support of her colleagues in the Progressive Caucus?

The choices are: (a) take back the power currently held by our
thermonuclear monarch; or (b) shut up and pray. Those are the only two
choices, and everybody gets to choose where they stand. The people in Congress who won't step up to either of them are a nothing but a bunch of putzes.

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate
millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains
very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our
constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is
fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

First
Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S.
on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to
come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and
Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So
... are we finally going to get the truth?

Sunday, January 25, 2015

I've always assumed that the Grateful Dead chose the band's name and iconography as a commentary on the threat of nuclear war.

In particular, it seems to echo the phrase that John F. Kennedy included in his nuclear test ban speech in 1963, when he said that "A full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold millions elsewhere. And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev warned the Communist Chinese, 'the survivors would envy the dead.'"

I can't help wondering at the coincidence of the Dead's big July 4th concert series, and the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference that will be taking place in New York City in April/May at the UN.

"The song is a dialogue between the last man and woman left alive
following an apocalyptic catastrophe: Dobson has stated that the initial
inspiration for "Morning Dew" was the film On the Beach which is focused on the survivors of virtual global annihilation by nuclear holocaust."

Let's dedicate June, July, and August this year to recognizing the 70th
anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6
and 9, 2015). . . AND let's do something about it: make a nuclear ban a reality.

At the Peace and Planet nuclear disarmament events in New York in April, I heard Prof. Zia Mian challenge
the audience to confront the fact that the promises that we have gotten
to date from the US to eliminate nuclear weapons aren't being honored. We think we've made progress, but the truth is that we've FAILED.

Far too many people think that the NPT is about freezing the status quo,
and preventing additional states from obtaining nuclear weapons. This
is a fundamental misunderstanding. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo:
nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear
"haves" agree to disarm.

The choices are: (a) take back the power currently held by our thermonuclear monarch; or (b) shut up and pray. Those are the only two choices, and everybody gets to choose where they stand.

As for the people in Congress who won't step up to either of them?

They're nothing but a bunch of putzes.

PS:

We're the putzes who elected them.

TAKE ACTION:

Force this Congress to take back

its Constitutional powers.

AND/OR

Elect a Congress that will.

Related posts

The decision about whether to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation is our
decision. And that is why the entire country is mobilizing for mass
action for nuclear disarmament in 2015. Are we capable of making sure
the messengers -- Obama, Putin, the other
agents of government -- hear their instructions from us clearly?

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate
millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains
very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our
constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is
fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

Friday, January 23, 2015

I have been in the process of conferring with colleagues here in Chicago about what we should be doing in light of the recently published summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on CIA torture.

I hope that a broad alliance of concerned people -- including but not limited to the groups and individuals already actively protesting illegitimate U.S. practices of kidnapping, detention, and torture, such as the Chicago Coalition to Shut Down Guantanamo -- will take up the report on CIA torture and make it an object of careful study, and a foundation for activism.

As I reviewed the outline of the findings, it struck me that many of the findings point to the fact that the CIA is simply ungovernable:

(4) The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.

(5) The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

(6) The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

(7) The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

(8) The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

(9) The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.

(10) The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.

(17) The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious or significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systematic and individual management failures.

(18) The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

(Emphasis added.)

Time to reprise the 1975 Church Committee hearings?
(a.k.a. United States Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities)

The report makes it clear that the CIA is a law unto itself. (Close observers of the CIA have known this all along, of course.) The CIA thwarted or circumvented every possible entity or individual that could possibly have acted as a brake on the CIA's illegal and immoral activities.

Considering its ungovernability, how can the CIA be allowed to stay in business?

There is fear within the Agency that abolition is in the wind. That was obvious to anyone watching the full court press by CIA spokespeople after the release of the report. They tried every trick in the book to convince the American public that the report should be disregarded.

Other implications of the report

Prosecute torture and other crimes

The CIA carried out brutal torture:

(3) The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.

(14) CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

(1) The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

(2) The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

Many of us feel that, since torture is never permissible, effectiveness or ineffectiveness should not even be discussed. However, we do need to emphasize frequently that torture serves only to terrorize, not to gain information.

The role of psychologists in the CIA torture program requires special attention:

(13) Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.

It is perhaps the signal achievement of the film "Beneath the
Blindfold" that it
portrays four different survivors, each of whose experience of torture
was distinct from that of any of the others, and each of whom has an
otherwise unique personality, and yet each makes clear that they share a
long-lasting trauma. One leaves the film with a deeply-felt sense of
the lasting trauma caused by torture of any kind.

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article
describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing
around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that
Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of
Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate
Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the
screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our
civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need
to contribute to repairing them."

UPDATE: JANUARY 28, 2015Government Doing its Best to Undermine Torture Report and Whistleblowers

The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that administration agencies return all copies of a classified torture report to the committee, which would effectively place the “classified report beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act,” and could close the book on a very dark time in America’s history that we should never forget.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The reward for committing to spend some time every week on the issue of nuclear disarmament -- e.g. developing the habit of being part of #NoNukesTuesday every week -- is that you start to see the forest for the trees . . . and you start to see how big this movement for nuclear disarmament is really growing.

For instance, on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, I learned . . .

There is a real debate happening right now in the UK about eliminating nuclear forces there:

In light of the upcoming review of the NPT (Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and the fact that organizations
throughout the country and worldwide are
organizing to press the U.S. to substantially reduce its stores of
nuclear weapons, it seems like a good time to use social media to get
EVERYONE on board!

It's up to those of us with networks in the U.S. to get the word out to
people in this country about the what nukes do to people -- and the need
for people to become active in the movement to eliminate nuclear
weapons.

Ideally, people would want to know about the multiple circles of injury for their city: starting with the 2.8 km radius circle defining an inner radius with lethal 200 psi air blast and 5000 rem radiation ...

The "Vanished Zone"
If a 1 MT nuclear weapon exploded near the center of Chicago, the entire
downtown (including an area extending almost to the United Center on the west,
to Lincoln Park in the north, and Chinatown in the south, would be destroyed
outright, and be irradiated to a degree that would prevent future use.

. . . continuing with the 6 km radius fireball ...

The Fireball Zone
The fireball resulting from a 1 MT nuclear weapon detonated over Chicago
would incinerate everyone within a 6 km radius -- an area extending almost
to Garfield Park on the west, Uptown on the north, and Bronzeville to the south.

. . . and the the 11 km radius of 10 psi air blast which could be expected to be fatal to nearly everyone present, because of the blizzard of disintegrating structures ...

The Collapse Zone
Much of Chicago would be a death zone, resulting from the the air blast that
would create a blizzard of disintegrating structures in a zone extending 11 km in
all directions from the epicenter of the blast -- extending beyond Hyde Park in
the south, and practically to Oak Park in the west and Evanston in the north.

and culminating with the startling 51 km radius of third degree burns . . .

3rd Degree Burn Zone: Survival Questionable
Perhaps most startling of all, the area affected by 3rd degree burns would extend
far beyond the city limits to encompass towns as far north as Waukegan,
as far west as St. Charles, and as far south as Crete, and as far east as Gary, IN.
and east as Gary, IN.

When you look at it this way, is it still possible to say nuclear weapons are "somebody else's problem"?

There are many books proffered to children that provide justifications
for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The discourse on the
use of atomic weapons is certainly a worthy topic of study for young
people of a certain age. However, there is a distinction between
critical reading of atom bombing history and passive receiving of atom
bombing dogma. I am wondering about how this can be effectively broken
down.

That's right . . . just take a map of your local metropolis, spread it out
on the floor, and put the whole family to work learning the geometry of
nuclear strike using high quality wood-crafted educational aids.

I never quite understood how much of a Chicago story the Bomb and
opposition to it really is. I can think of at least three reasons why
people right here in
Chicago -- today -- need to make themselves heard about nuclear disarmament . . .